Avoidance of nocebo effects by coincident naming of treatment benefits during the medical interview for informed consent—Evidence from dynamometry
Authors:
Open Access
- 9 August 2022
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Psychology
- Vol. 13, 923044
Abstract
Introduction: In the context of giving risk information for obtaining informed consent, it is not easy to comply with the ethical principle of “primum nihil nocere.” Carelessness, ignorance of nocebo effects and a misunderstood striving for legal certainty can lead doctors to comprehensive and brutal risk information. It is known that talking about risks and side effects can even trigger those and result in distress and nonadherence to medication or therapy.Methods: Recently, we have reported on significant clinically relevant effects of verbal and non-verbal suggestions on maximal muscular arm strength in healthy volunteers and in patients at two time points before surgery. Maximal strength during arm abduction was measured by dynamometry of the deltoid muscle group. Suggestions from clinical everyday life were formulated as presumed negative and neutral versions.Results: Here, we report on the effects of two versions of risk information in 45 patients. After sole mentioning risks of a puncture for the placement of a pain catheter, the maximal arm muscle strength was significantly reduced to 83% of baseline several days (T1), and to 84% the evening before surgery (T2). Strength was not significantly decreased and close to baseline at T1 and T2 when risks and benefits of a pain catheter were combined in one sentence. The difference between both versions was significant. With persistent normal distribution of values, the effect was due to uniform reactions of many patients, not to strong reactions of a few. High suggestibility and increase of anxiety with approaching surgery were identified as influencing factors for the neutralizing effect of modified wording.Conclusion: We not only suggest an alternative formulation for risk information to avoid nocebo effects but present an objective method to quantify and compare effects of different wordings. Thereby, we provide evidence that concurrently given positive aspects can neutralize negative effects during medical interview.Keywords
This publication has 45 references indexed in Scilit:
- Enhancing the efficacy of heart surgery by optimizing patients' preoperative expectations: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trialAmerican Heart Journal, 2013
- Plenty to Worry About: Consent, Control, and AnxietyThe American Journal of Bioethics, 2012
- To Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, May Do Patients Harm: The Problem of the Nocebo Effect for Informed ConsentThe American Journal of Bioethics, 2012
- The Nocebo Effect and Its Relevance for Clinical PracticePsychosomatic Medicine, 2011
- Differences in Adverse Effect Reporting in Placebo Groups in SSRI and Tricyclic Antidepressant TrialsDrug Safety, 2009
- Anxiety Predicts Mortality and Morbidity After Coronary Artery and Valve Surgery—A 4-Year Follow-Up StudyPsychosomatic Medicine, 2007
- The Biochemical and Neuroendocrine Bases of the Hyperalgesic Nocebo EffectThe Journal of Neuroscience, 2006
- Framing effects on expectations, decisions, and side effects experienced: The case of influenza immunizationJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1996
- Some norms and reliability data for the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Zung Self‐Rating Depression scaleBritish Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1983
- HEADACHE, LUMBAR PUNCTURE, AND EXPECTATIONThe Lancet, 1981